Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/352,048

INKJET HEAD AND INKJET PRINTING APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 13, 2023
Examiner
UHLENHAKE, JASON S
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
1010 granted / 1160 resolved
+19.1% vs TC avg
Minimal -3% lift
Without
With
+-2.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
1201
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
52.7%
+12.7% vs TC avg
§102
35.7%
-4.3% vs TC avg
§112
6.7%
-33.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1160 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (U.S. 2005/0190232) Regarding claim 1, an ink jet head comprising: an ink supply part (104, 102, 105) configured to supply an ink (Figure 4; Paragraph 0054) A nozzle plate (130) connected to the ink supply part and having a nozzle configured to drop the ink provided from the ink supply part (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0053-0054; 0061-0063) A nozzle plate heating part (134) adjacent to the nozzle plate (nozzle plate is integrally formed with the heater 134) and configured to heat the nozzle plate [the heater 134 may be formed in any pattern that can uniformly heat the entire surface of the nozzle plate 130] (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0062-0063) An insulation member (insulating member 131b) between the nozzle plate (130) and the ink supply part (104, 102, 105) (Figure 4; Paragraph 0061) Regarding claim 7, wherein the nozzle plate heating part comprises a heater on one surface of the nozzle plate (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0062-0063) Regarding claim 11, wherein the nozzle plate heating part comprises: electrode terminals electrically connected to the nozzle plate; and an electrode control part configured to apply power to the electrode terminals (Paragraphs 0058-0063) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 14-15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (U.S. Pub. 2007/0273719) in view of Lee (U.S. 2005/0190232) Regarding claim 14, an ink jet printing apparatus comprising: a stage (platen) configured to receive a substrate thereon (Paragraph 0029) An ink jet head configured to drop ink on the substrate; a reservoir configured to store the ink (Abstract; Paragraphs 0036) Lee discloses: the ink jet head comprises: an ink supply part configured to be supplied with the ink from the reservoir (Abstract; Paragraph 0054) A nozzle plate (130) connected to the ink supply part and having a nozzle configured to drop the ink provided from the ink supply part (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0053-0054; 0061-0063) A nozzle plate heating part (134) adjacent to the nozzle plate and configured to heat the nozzle plate [the heater 134 may be formed in any pattern that can uniformly heat the entire surface of the nozzle plate 130] (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0062-0063) An insulation member (insulating member 131b) between the nozzle plate (130) and the ink supply part (104, 102, 105) (Figure 4; Paragraph 0061) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lee into the device of Yamashita, for the purpose of heating ink to a uniform temperature (Paragraph 0013) Regarding claim 15, further comprising a pressure actuator in the ink supply part and configured to vibrate the ink in the nozzle (Abstract; Paragraphs 0006, 0011) Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses wherein the nozzle plate heating part comprises a heater on one surface of the nozzle plate (Figure 4; Paragraphs 0062-0063) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lee into the device of Yamashita, for the purpose of heating ink to a uniform temperature (Paragraph 0013) Claim(s) 6, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. 2005/0190232) view of Ueda et al (U.S. Pub. 2015/0158300) Regarding claim 6, Ueda discloses it is known in the art to use one of glass and silica fiber in the insulation member (Paragraph 0032) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ueda into the device of Lee, for the purpose of providing high insulation Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses the nozzle plate comprising a conductive material (Paragraphs 0062-0063) Ueda discloses it is known in the art to use one of glass and silica fiber in the insulation member (Paragraph 0032) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ueda into the device of Lee, for the purpose of providing high insulation Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. 2005/0190232) in view of Paschkewitz (U.S. Pub. 2015/0273849) Regarding claim 10, Paschkewitz discloses it is known in the art to use an induction heating device having a coil (Abstract; Paragraphs 0003-0004; 0032) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Paschkewitz into the device of Lee, for the purpose of achieving precise heating Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. 2005/0190232) in view of Sim et al (U.S. Pub. 2021/0332256) Regarding claim 12, Sim discloses ink comprising at least one of a light emitting element, a conductor metal particle, and a light conversion particle, and wherein the light emitting element comprises a first semiconductor layer, a second semiconductor layer, and an active layer between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer (Abstract; Paragraph 0156) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sim into the device of Lee, for the purpose of improving product reliability Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (U.S. Pub. 2007/0273719) as modified by Lee (U.S. 2005/0190232) and further in view of Paschkewitz (U.S. Pub. 2015/0273849) Regarding claim 19, Paschkewitz discloses it is known in the art to use an induction heating device having a coil (Abstract; Paragraphs 0003-0004; 0032) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Paschkewitz into the device of Yamashita as modified by Lee, for the purpose of achieving precise heating Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-5, 8-9, 16-17, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S UHLENHAKE whose telephone number is (571)272-5916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Douglas X. Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JASON S UHLENHAKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 February 19, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 13, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jul 07, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 10, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600129
DISCHARGE UNIT, LIQUID DISCHARGE HEAD, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF DISCHARGE UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600140
INKJET PRINTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600130
EJECTION HEAD NOZZLE FLOODING CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600150
RECORDING DEVICE, SERVICE LIFE ESTIMATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600125
LIQUID EJECTION APPARATUS AND LIQUID EJECTION CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (-2.6%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1160 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month